R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 415

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Neglect,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Killing and dismembering several rabbits, some of whom were kept as pets
Sentence: Global sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment, with 503 days’ credit for presentence custody; Lifetime animal prohibition order imposed under s. 447.1; DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Wilfulness,

These are the reasons for sentencing after a jury had found a 32-year-old first time offender guilty of 12 counts of animal cruelty under the Criminal Code. The court held a fact-finding endorsement hearing to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial, details of which can be found here.

The Court reviewed the sentencing principles in the opening statements, relying on Parranto and Friesen to emphasize that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness or degree of culpability of the offender, and that for animal cruelty offences, deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles. They went on to quote from Chen and Alcorn to highlight that animal abuse crimes are crimes of violence that are often not sentenced to reflect that gravity and confirmed that animals are no longer viewed as chattels (paras. 5 to 7).

Among the abuse detailed under circumstances of the offence starting at paragraph 9 include amputating one rabbit’s foot with pliers and no pain or sedative medication, castrating another rabbit (Loki) with an X-Acto knife for spraying him, who then developed an infection that resulted in the offender breaking Loki’s neck, and beating and throwing around another rabbit (Henry), resulting in the animal’s death. The beating was captured on video (paras. 13 to 15).

The pre-sentence report discussed the circumstances of the offender (paras. 23 to 29), which revealed a long history of disordered alcohol and substance use beginning in his early teen years, leaving school in Grade 11 and working a variety of low-skill jobs in periods ranging from three months to two years, attributing the duration to either contract work or difficulties getting along with management, but no physical or emotional abuse. He began using methamphetamines in his late 20s because it produced positive feelings and helped ease his depression and ADHD and attributed his poor decision-making and offences to this use.

A psychiatric pre-sentence report (“SAFPC Report”) was also prepared, in which the authoring doctor stated that the offender “should be diagnosed with Polysubstance (primary crystal methamphetamine) Use Disorder with Past Episode of Drug-induced Psychosis, which has subsided after he was arrested and deprived of illicit substances” and that he “meets diagnostic criteria for Unspecified Personality Disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits”, noting that the offences “occurred during the time when he became dependent on crystal methamphetamine and while daily using this substance, he had some psychotic symptomatology (voices which did not give him any directions but irritated him and fueled his anger)” (para. 27). The doctor also reported that the offender presented as a “self-focused individual diagnosed with unspecified personality disorder with prominent paranoid, narcissistic and borderline traits who has poor coping strategy, and appeared to be short-tempered” and that his “history and the results of his observation at SAFPC suggest that he is emotionally unstable and has low stress tolerance. According to the results of the psychological risk assessment, various post-release stressors such as housing/employment strain; volatile intimate disputes, or perceived betrayal/rejection can contribute to his relapses into substance use, feelings of rage and attitudes supportive of punishment of animals or individuals” with a low to moderate risk of re-offending, which would substantially increase if the offender were to experience any of the listed post-release stressors (paras. 28-29).

The Court reported receiving three Victim Impact Statements, including one from Brad Nichols, Calgary Humane Society’s Director of Enforcement, who wrote that the community is upset and horrified by intentional animal abuse and cruelty, and that that it “will rightfully take pause in rehoming pets privately on online marketplaces based on awareness of these crimes, unable to trust there is a loving home on the other end of that transaction,” and that “a community should be able to trust that companion animals are valued, cared for and live free of abuse” (para. 31). Other Statements submitted were from a Calgary Police Service detective who had worked on the case, who indicated that investigating this file left her shocked despite having attended previous scenes involving murders, traumatic deaths, and other violent incidents and from the offender’s former girlfriend who said that her experience with the offender and his actions has resulted in her being diagnosed with PTSD and feeling like she can no longer trust her judgment (paras. 32 to 33).

The Court agreed with the Crown that the extensive pain and suffering involved, the brutality of violence and use of weapons, failure to seek veterinary care and allowing the victims to suffer, and the breach of trust and defencelessness of the vulnerable animal victims were considered aggravating factors were aggravating factors, with which defence counsel agreed (paras. 37 to 38). Defence counsel submitted a variety of mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of criminal record and pointed to the pre-sentencing report regarding the offender’s substance use disorder, but the Court gave those factors limited weight in reducing his moral culpability. It also found that the offender’s apology letter and expressions of remorse were more self-serving in that the focus was more on the impact of the offences on the offender himself – the loss of his relationships, his reputation, and his prior sense of identity, as well as the hardships of being in custody – with comparatively little acknowledgment of the harm he caused the rabbits and others affected by his conduct (paras. 47 to 48).

The Crown submitted nine cases in support of their sentencing position (paras. 49 to 52), including Nichols, Raugust and Geick; while defence relied on Ehbrecht, Purvis, Huston and Zhu which the Court found to be limited in parity (paras. 53 to 58).

The Court ultimately imposed the following sentences (at para. 62 to 63)

  • On Counts 2 and 3, regarding Smokey – concurrent 24-month sentences.
  • On Counts 5 and 6, regarding Loki – concurrent 18-month sentences.
  • On Count 7, regarding Chloe – 12 months.
  • On Counts 10 and 11, regarding Henry – concurrent 54-month sentences.
  • On Counts 13, 14, and 15, regarding the unnamed multiple rabbits – concurrent 24-month sentences.

These sentences are concurrent within each victim-specific sentence block, which the Court then treated as consecutive so as to better reflect distinct victims and episodes of offending over time. The aggregate sentence was reduced to 96 months, or 8 years, after totality that reflected the overall gravity of the offences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. After having served 335 days in pretrial custody, a rate of 1.5 to 1 gave the offender 503 days’ credit, leaving him with 79 months left to serve. The Court also imposed a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition as well as a lifetime animal prohibition order “in light of the gravity of these offences, the breach of trust involved, and the need to protect animals from future harm” (para. 63).

This is the longest animal cruelty sentence in Alberta court history; previously it was Raugust who had been sentenced six and a half years for torturing and killing multiple cats.

https://canlii.ca/t/kl7m4
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 415

R v Weseen, 2026 ABKB 71

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: ss. 445(1)(a), 445.1(1)(a) and 446(1)(b)
Province or Territory: Alberta,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Rabbit,
Type of Distress: Injuring and killing many rabbits, some of whom the offender had named
Sentence: Court found facts as proven for sentencing: the offender had wilfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering, and injury to multiple rabbits and failed to provide suitable and adequate care
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Procedure,

This is a fact-finding endorsement from the court to determine whether it would accept as proven all essential facts to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and any other fact relevant to sentencing disclosed by the evidence at trial: Criminal Code, s 724(2). The offender had been charged with 15 counts of offences committed against rabbits (Smokey, Loki, Chloe, and Henry) as well as multiple unnamed rabbits, by killing or injuring them and causing them unnecessary pain, injury or suffering. On June 28, 2025, a jury had found the offender guilty of 12 counts; the Crown had previously withdrawn three counts.

Some of the acts of violence committed toward the rabbits include: severing of limbs and castration without sedation or veterinary care/oversight, improper handling causing one rabbit’s skin to separate from the muscle in her neck and beating and throwing another rabbit around while holding their back legs.

The court accepted the testimony of forensic veterinarian Dr. Margaret Doyle, who had examined several of the rabbit victims and found that the injuries were made intentionally by the offender. It decided against listing all of the injuries caused to the multiple rabbits – well over a dozen unnamed in addition to the four named rabbits – due to their graphic nature (para. 6, 1-24).

Defence counsel invited the court to make other findings “based on what the offender told the police officer regarding his mental health issues, personal circumstances, including financial circumstances and substance abuse, and voices he says he heard in his head at the time of the offences” (para. 8), but the court declined to accept those as fact and instead wait for the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre Psychiatric/Psychological Risk Assessment and Pre-sentence Report.

https://canlii.ca/t/khz28
R v Weseen 2026 ABKB 71

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2026 MBKB: Reasons for sentence

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing,
Animal: Bird, Cat, Exotic, Fish, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: 12 years' imprisonment (less time-served); a lifetime prohibition against having care or control over any animals, and DNA orders for each offender
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Sentencing (Prohibition orders),

This summary is from the sentencing decision made in the Winnipeg animal crush case, where the male and female offenders both pled guilty with a recommended sentence of 12 years of imprisonment submitted jointly by Crown and defence counsel. The sentencing submissions can be found here, and the plea matter is here.

The Court opens proceedings with a harsh rebuke for the offenders: “The depravity is stunning. In over 40 years as a lawyer, and as a judge, I have not seen any facts come close to this. Absolutely stunning. You tortured and killed 90 animals for your own twisted gratification. I cannot begin to conceive the suffering of each of those defenceless animals as you tortured them to death for your own deviant sexual pleasure and profit” (p. T1).

This was followed by a quote from the Winnipeg Humane Society’s Community Impact Statement, where the Court noted that animals are vulnerable, “in particular cats because they do not have their own voices and so many are feral with no one looking out for them”. It then refers to the anxiety and distress the animals would have experienced from the torture inflicted on them and “in some cases from having to watch as other animals were tortured and killed in front of them”, and how death was not instantaneous for these animals who would have felt terror as their suffering was prolonged” (p. T1).

Drawing from the evidence that had been presented, the Court remarked on the other plans made by the offenders for their enterprise, citing communications where they discussed plans “to obtain a pregnant dog and kill each puppy on video at the moment of its birth; finding a homeless man and a dog to kill; and fantasize about getting a human baby so you could torture it for your sexual pleasure and profit”, indicating that they were fortunate that their enterprise had been interrupted before it could escalate.

The Court deemed the moral blameworthiness of both offenders to be at the highest level and showed surprise that, prior to this, the couple had led “unremarkable” lives: they had gone to school, had jobs and came from good and loving families (p. T2). Despite this, the Court seemed somewhat encouraged by the behaviour of the offenders while in custody awaiting trial, that they appeared to be taking responsibility for their conduct, participating in available programming and productively working with the staff at their facilities, with no reports of any issues.

The offenders were sentenced to 12 years (minus time served) as set out by the Crown and their counsel, with the breakdown as follows:

  • Counts 2 and 3: Five years on each count concurrent to each other;
  • Counts 4 and 5: Five years for each, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentences on the previous two counts; and
  • On counts 1 and 6: Two years on each, concurrent but consecutive to counts 4 and 5.

They were also sentenced to lifetime prohibitions against owning, care or control of any animals: “You can’t even be in a house where animals are, and that includes birds” (p. T3), as well as ordered to provide DNA samples.

This case sets a new benchmark in animal cruelty sentencing, having the distinction of almost doubling the previous Canadian jail sentencing record of 6.5 years for animal cruelty charges given to “a psychopath and a sociopath with bleak prospects for rehabilitation and an overall moderate to high risk to reoffend” who had pleaded guilty to nine animal cruelty charges for the torture of nine cats and killing of seven.

Reasons for sentence - Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2026 MBKB: Sentencing submissions

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Other,
Animal: Cat, Exotic, Fish, Other, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: Joint recommendation for both offenders: 12 years' imprisonment, lifetime prohibition against having care or control over any animals, and DNA orders
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Sentencing (Prohibition orders), Suffering, Unnecessary,

This is the transcript for the sentencing submissions for the Winnipeg couple who had pled guilty on six counts of causing animal suffering in a highly publicized case involving animal crush videos created and sold through a Telegram messaging group. Details from the plea submission are here.

The Crown reviewed some concerns highlighted in the presentencing reports (PSR) for each offender and suggested that they should be taken with “a large helping of salt” (p. T13). For the male offender, the Crown noted inconsistencies where on “page 4 he says he was turned off and didn’t feel anything, didn’t feel anything positive from his behaviour, but then we have text conversations with Ms. Lima which suggests the opposite”; and “at page 17 he says he had no motivation to harm animals, but then we see the contrary again in the texts, and the PSR concludes saying that he lacks empathy with the animals and fails to appreciate the severity of his actions, and also makes a point of saying he has a history of controlling manipulating intimidating behaviour” (p. T13).

In the female offender’s PSR, the Crown again noted discrepancies between what was reported there and what the evidence indicated, with concerns that she did not appear to take full responsibility on one of her previous fraud convictions. where she had been convicted twice of defrauding elderly patients when she worked as a home healthcare aide. The PSR went on to highlight that “on page 4 she denies knowing anything about the commercial aspect of this whole enterprise” and “she says she feels bad, and then that she was coerced by her co-accused to do this, but then we have her diary which seems to indicate something else, and her comments in the text messages wanting some birds, wanting to crush things, and how she’ll never stop” (p. T14). The Court found the PSRs for both accused to be self-serving.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas but were outweighed by the aggravating factors of the female offender’s previous criminal history, the prolonged suffering and brutality involved in the torture, and abuse of a position of trust toward animals, all of which increase moral blameworthiness. The Crown also highlighted the planning and effort involved in obtaining the animals, and the amount of organization put into the website where the rules and regulations for membership asked potential members to submit new original videos and photos of similar acts of cruelty, which “just perpetuates and promotes further violence against animals” (p. T15). The commercialization and monetization of the animal torture, where a 15-minute video would cost $150 and the price list with its many double or triple digit figures indicates that the torture and suffering were lengthy until the animal’s death, was also referred to as aggravating. Other evidence read into the record was a Facebook message exchange from April 2024, where the offenders imagined finding and crushing a child, and saying how no one would ever find it.

The Crown submitted case law focusing on denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives in animal abuse cases, including Geick, Chen, Friesen, and Nichols.

The Court also heard a Community Impact Statement (CIS), submitted by Winnipeg Humane Society with support from Humane Canada, outlining the broader harm caused by this case.

The CIS described the animals as having endured extreme psychological and physical suffering, including prolonged distress, fear, and attempts to escape. In some instances, animals were forced to witness the abuse and death of others before suffering the same fate. Going beyond the animal victims, the statement detailed the significant and measurable effect on the broader public. The case generated widespread outrage and led to the formation of Project Artemis Advocates (PAW), a grassroots organization that quickly grew to more than 2,000 members. Community members organized 18 vigils and rallies, even in extreme winter conditions, demonstrating the depth of public engagement and distress. As one section from the CIS made by the founder of PAW cited in court emphasized, the case has helped shift public perception away from the idea that animal harm is trivial, that it’s “just an animal”, to underscore that animal protection is a shared community value.

The CIS concluded that the abuse had lasting psychological, physical, and social effects on both animals and the human community, an assessment that aligned closely with the Crown’s submission on aggravating factors.

A joint sentencing recommendation of 12 years’ imprisonment, lifetime prohibition on owning or possessing animals under s. 447.1(1), and DNA orders for each offender was submitted for the Court’s consideration. Both Crown and defence counsel acknowledged that this case would likely be precedent-setting. The scale, organization, and commercialization of the offences distinguish it from prior animal cruelty cases.

 

Sentencing submissions incl CIS Kabecz and Lima - 26FEB11

R v Kabecz and Lima, 2025 MBKB: Plea submission

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.1
Province or Territory: Manitoba,
Offence: Abuse, Killing, Other,
Animal: Bird, Cat, Exotic, Fish, Other, Rabbit, Rodent,
Type of Distress: Torture and killing of more than 90 animals, recorded and distributed for commercial gain
Sentence: n/a
Legal Issue: Maim/Wound/Injure, Suffering, Unnecessary,

This is a plea submission from November 14, 2025 involving a male and female couple from Winnipeg who were charged with animal cruelty in one of the most horrific animal abuse cases in Canadian court history. Both accused pleaded guilty to six counts of willfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering to numerous animals over several months in 2024.

The case came to the attention of the authorities in August 2024 when an anonymous tipster contacted Manitoba’s Animal Care tipline about an online group they had located called Goddess May Premium Barefoot Crush that was selling and sharing videos of animals being crushed to death, distributed on the messaging app, Telegram, which had over 100 members. Screenshots and videos provided to Winnipeg police showed evidence of this, including a video of a bare human foot crushing live cats to death. There were also topless images of the male accused including his tattoos and his face, as well as a price list offering various animals being killed: a baby mouse for $5 or three kitten family for $180 (p. T4). Many of the videos had sexual components to them; “in one video, the female accused crushes a cat to death under her bare foot while she made loud sexual noises and purported to masturbate and orgasm as the cat dies” (p. T5).

Police linked the accused to the group and found evidence showing they filmed and sold videos of over 90 animals being tortured and killed including 67 cats, six rabbits, seven birds, six hamsters, two rats, an axolotl, a frog, and three goldfish. This activity generated about $2,800 CAD in profit.

The court accepted the guilty pleas and a pre-sentence report was ordered, with sentencing postponed to a later date.

Guilty plea - Kabecz and Lima 2025 MBKB

R. v. Jackson, 2025 ONSC 1677

Statute: Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Section: 11(b), 24(1)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Uttering threats,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Unreasonable delay per R v Jordan in a trial for eight counts on an indictment, including assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering a threat to cause death, and uttering threats to kill an animal related to persistent intimate partner violence against his wife
Sentence: Application granted; charges stayed per s 24(1) of the Charter
Legal Issue: Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

This is an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(B) regarding unreasonable delay of proceedings and 24(1) of the Charter.

Steven Jackson was charged with eight counts on an indictment, including assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering a threat to cause death, and uttering threats to kill an animal. The allegations involved persistent intimate partner violence against his wife of 31 years.

Jackson made the application for a stay on the ground that the unreasonably delay in his trial for 33 months infringes on his s.11(b) Charter rights, which was three months and 14 days over the ceiling set in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and is presumptively unreasonable.

The Court reviewed the decision in Jordan, where the Supreme Court of Canada set out a new framework which introduced presumptive ceilings for a timely trial. In the Ontario Court of Justice, the presumptive ceiling is 18 months, and in the Superior Court of Justice the presumptive ceiling is 30 months. Anything beyond the specified ceilings is presumptively unreasonable and the onus lies with the Crown to rebut this presumption by referring to exceptional circumstances (para. 21). It also reviewed the procedural history, beginning in July 2022, including the Applicant’s arrest due to the contents of his affidavit included in the Supplementary Application Record filed on June 25, 2024, for this matter. His affidavit included a video of his wife in which she can be seen nude, as well as a still image taken from that video, which her counsel indicated was taken without consent (para. 14-15). It was this incident where the Court found that the Crown had failed to establish that the delay caused by the voyeurism charge constituted an exceptional circumstance: While the voyeurism charge was unexpected, the police and Crown’s handling of the arrest and investigation was not unforeseeable (para. 40-45).

The Court acknowledged that this was a difficult conclusion considering the circumstances of this case given that the charges of intimate partner violence facing Jackson are serious and disturbing. The decision quoted from R. v. Vrbanic, 2025 ONCA 151, at para.63:

“One might be tempted to reason that this is “close enough.”  However, as I have already noted, in Jordan, at para. 56, the majority made clear that the presumptive ceiling “is not an aspirational target.  Rather, it is the point at which delay becomes presumptively unreasonable.”  The hard ceilings in Jordan give practical effect to this principle.  A “close enough” approach would foster the uncertainty and culture of complacency rejected by Jordan.” (para. 49)

The Application was granted and the charges were stayed.

https://canlii.ca/t/kb1t6
R. v. Jackson 2025 ONSC 1677

R. v. Grant, 2025 ONSC 4991

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 445.01 (1), 109
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Dog,
Type of Distress: Shooting and killing police service dog, Bingo, while attempting to evade arrest in domestic dispute
Sentence: Four consecutive years imprisonment for killing bingo of 14 years’ imprisonment sentence before credit for presentence custody
Legal Issue: Procedure (Charges), Sentencing (Imprisonment), Maim/Wound/Injure, Unnecessary,

This is the sentencing case of an offender who shot and killed a police service dog, Bingo, in the context of escaping capture for killing someone involved in a domestic dispute with his daughter. It is significant for the sentence that was levied on the charge for killing Bingo at four years imprisonment and the Victim Impact Statements that lament the loss of Bingo which indicate that in addition to being a service animal, Bingo was also a treasured family member.

On July 24, 2023, Kenneth Grant attended his daughter’s apartment armed with a loaded firearm after learning that her former partner, Sophonias Haile, was refusing to leave. During the confrontation, Grant fired four shots at Mr. Haile, killing him. The following day, when police came to arrest him, Grant fired at Detective Constable Goulah and later at Sergeant Smith. During this encounter, Mr. Grant deliberately shot and killed Bingo, who was assisting the officers in locating him. Grant fled the scene but was apprehended later that day.

Grant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest, reckless discharge of a firearm, killing a service animal, and possession of a loaded firearm. Sgt. Smith submitted a Victim Impact Statement to the Court that stated “My family is without Bingo”, and his wife submitted a Statement on behalf of the Smith family that indicated how “the family has not just faced the loss of Bingo but as the Victim Impact Statement sets out: “we not only grieve the violence that took place that day, but we also continue to mourn our profound and personal reality: the brutal and senseless loss of Bingo, as well as the very real fact that my husband almost didn’t make it home to our family that night.””(para. 16-17)

The Court accepted a joint submission by counsel and imposed a global sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. The Court applied the principle of proportionality to ensure each sentence reflected the seriousness of the individual offences and the principle of totality to ensure the overall sentence was not unduly long or harsh. Individual sentences included 10 years for manslaughter, nine years concurrently for the firearms offences, and four years consecutively for the killing of Bingo. The court found that the killing of a service animal was an aggravating factor and emphasized that the offence represented a deliberate and callous killing (para. 41, 53).

After credit for 771 days of pre-sentence custody (calculated at 1.5:1), the remaining sentence was 10 years and 10 months. The Court also imposed a section 109 weapons prohibition for ten years, a DNA order and a forfeiture order

https://canlii.ca/t/kf8n9
R v Grant 2025 ONSC 4991

R v KT, 2025 ONCJ 234

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 162, 163.1, 171.1, 172.1, 173, 264, and 372
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of animal sexual abuse materials in conjunction with child sexual abuse materials; criminal harassment and indecent communications
Sentence: Calculated at 7 years, 6 months with time served at 569 days; 348 of those subject to lockdown and 456 days in overcrowded custody; after totality remaining sentence calculated at more than four years
Legal Issue: Sentencing (Imprisonment), Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

This is a sentencing decision which at the outset is determined as complex by the Court.

The offender, KT, is a 35-year-old man with no prior criminal record who pleaded guilty to an array of sexual offences, including criminal harassment and indecent communication against adult female co-workers, child luring, making sexually explicit material available to children, possession of child pornography, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16. KT was diagnosed with pedophilic disorder (non-exclusive), cyclothymic disorder, ADHD, and substance use disorders in remission (para. 71, 74). Assessments placed his intellectual functioning in the low average to borderline range (para 81-83). The court found him to be an “untreated, indiscriminate sex offender” who posed a high risk of re-offending if left untreated (para. 2).

The police discovered a total of 3,651 videos and 2,257 images that depicted child pornography on KT’s devices with male and female victims aged between six months and 17 years old, with images that included depictions of bestiality (para. 30-31). The court also noted as aggravating the use of his workplace to target victims, the exploitation of minors, and the lack of remorse (para. 97-98); the size and nature of the child pornography collection is treated by the court as an extremely aggravating factor (para. 164-165).

The total sentence was calculated 7 years and 6 months in custody after applying the principle of totality and accounting for pre-sentence custody credit (paras 248-249, 293-294). Lifetime orders were imposed under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) and section 161 of the Criminal Code, including restrictions on contact with minors, internet use, and proximity to victims (paras 313-317), and DNA and a firearms prohibition order for 10 years were issued (para. 311-312).

https://canlii.ca/t/kbv8m
R v KT 2025 ONCJ 234

R. v. King, 2024 NWTTC 2

Statute: Criminal Code,
Section: s. 163.1(3), s. 163.1(4), s. 163.1(4.1), s. 723(2), s. 726.1
Province or Territory: Northwest Territories,
Offence: Other,
Animal: Unknown,
Type of Distress: Possession of animal sexual abuse materials involving children included in collection of child sexual abuse material
Sentence: 20 months incarceration (less pretrial custody)
Legal Issue: Possession of animal sexual abuse exploitation material ("pornography"),

This case involves an action by the Crown to review representative sample of child pornography or Child Sex Assault Material (“CSAM”). The accused had pleaded guilty to charges of having possessed child pornography, which included forensic analysis of Mr. King’s devices revealed 1,731 unique images and 140 unique videos of accessible CSAM, with an additional 512 unique images and two videos of CSAM were inaccessible on the device (para. 6 noting paras. 13-20 of Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF)). Among those recovered materials were human and animated CSAM images of children engaged in sexual activities with animals.

The Court noted that Parliament, the courts, Crown and victim advocates indicate that the replaying of CSAM revictimizes their victims, and where a description is contained in the ASF, as was done in this case, there is nothing left to imagine; and that, if at any point this court believed it was appropriate to view this CSAM, the court would be compelled to seek the victims’ views on the issue of the court viewing their sexual degradation as per the Victims Bill of Rights (para. 12-13).

In this case, the Court rules that the only possible outcomes would be the court becoming so enraged that its ability to impartially determine a sentence is reasonably subject to doubt. It is notable that the court acknowledges the degree of horror present in the material as so significant that it could prejudice judicial proceedings, a principle that may have weight going forward.

 

 

https://canlii.ca/t/k4xgr
R. v. King

Richards v. Richards, 2024 ONSC 2488

Statute: Divorce Act,
Section: s. 15,2; 16(1-3),(6)
Province or Territory: Ontario,
Offence: Killing,
Animal: Wildlife (local),
Type of Distress: Animal abuse in front of children (family violence)
Sentence: Final order amended to include parenting coordinator and counselling
Legal Issue: Family law,

This is a trial to change the initial order of joint custody issued by Justice McSweeney on January 26, 2018. The issues in dispute are decision-making responsibility, parenting time, police enforcement of the parenting time order, ongoing child support, retroactive child support, life insurance to secure child support and whether spousal support should be terminated.

After the initial order was issued, investigations by Dufferin Child and Family Services (DCFS)commenced due to a number of allegations made by Ms. Richards that her ex-husband’s parenting time was fraught with abuse and neglect, which resulted in a number of temporary orders. Among the allegations was the accusation that Mr. Richards routinely engaged in substance use (alcohol and drugs) and animal abuse in front the children, with one example being that he killed a sleeping raccoon in the attic with a knife in front of them, which Mr. Richards minimized as protecting his family. Based on these allegations but prior to the conclusion of the investigation, Mr. Richards parenting time was restricted to weekly, with supervision.

Later investigations through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) later found no conclusive evidence of abuse or neglect and restored Mr. Richard’s parenting time. Ms. Richards continued to prevent the children from seeing him based on her children’s wishes, and action was brought before the Court to review the original custody Order.

Neither the DCFS nor the OCL found any evidence of abuse or neglect in Mr. Richards parenting. Some of the accusations raised by Ms. Richards caused concern, notably the drug use and the “raccoon incident”, which led the children to have an unfavourable impression of their father (para. 80). However, the Court determined that both parents contributed to parental alienation, and that those impacts combined with the toxic relationship between parents, substance misuse and “the interruption of the child–father bond cannot be discounted”, therefore it was in the children’s best interests to effectively address those issues (para. 98).

The original custody Order was replaced with one that accommodates a phased custody approach for Mr. Richards in order to rebuild the children’s trust in him (para. 100), with the addition of a parental coordinator and counselling orders for both parents and children.

Importance of Case: While the Court accepts that the killing of a raccoon occurred, it simply rules that as a “cause for concern” and sign of significant trust erosion, that must be remedied through the new phased custody plan. However, no more attention is drawn to it than to the accusations of drug use, and it does not appear to have been ruled a sign of child abuse or neglect, which indicates that family courts do not always acknowledge the statistical link between animal abuse and child abuse.

https://canlii.ca/t/k49z0
Richards v. Richards